Memorable, crazy movie

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

it is a love story which succeeds in it's attempt to create suspense--will true love be victorious? or will it be a tragedy? The suspense is intermingled with completely unintentional comic relief. It stars Hugh Grant before he became the bumbling fool in so many other movies. This movie is amazingly funny because of its lack of trying to be so. It was not meant to be a comedy, but the one-liners will be recited by its audiences for years after viewing. It was a truly valuable find in our campus library movie collection. Please trust me and rent this movie!!! You will never forget this experience!

From passion of romance to sword crossing action, this movie has a bit of everything. Starting in 1649 and then continuing through 1660, it follows the story of the highwayman "SilverBlade", and his efforts to protect the sister of one of his old friend's, all the while righting the wrongs still being committed after the common wealth was no longer in control of England.The lady Panthea Vyne first meets "SilverBlade" when he rescues her from a marriage to Lord Cromwell's tax collector -- which she believed would save his life. However, as she is soon after told, he has already died two weeks before. "SliverBlade" then decides to give her new husband a fair chance, and duels for his life.A few days later Panthea's Aunt Emma comes to steal her away, for -- as Aunt Emma explains it -- "I am a very old woman, I want you with me. Won't you come?".Soon after you learn that four years have passed, and the king has decided to marry a Portugise princess. Being that her aunt was once the nursemaid of the king, they are both invited to court to see the knew queen, where Pathea is the envy of every woman, including the king's old lover.As you continue to watch, the story of love, betrayal, and hope is spun around you, and at the end, you hope for what you know cannot be, just because it seems so unjust that the world would separate such a pair in so cruel a manor.After all this raving I have gone on with, you must be wondering why it only received an 8/10. Well, at least on the DVD version I have the graphics aren't exactly to the standard, even for the time. However, soon after starting the show, you forget completely about such things, and only think of the story.

Although filmed in 1988, this British made-for-TV movie captures the look and feel, the melodrama and romance, even the stagy lighting, of a big-budget 1930s Hollywood swashbuckler. By 1930s standards, it is a first-rate film. By today's standard, well, that's not really a fair standard to judge it by. It lacks the scale and fancy visual effects of "Braveheart," or "Gladiator," but in its quirky old-fashioned way, it is a better movie than either of them. And it is miles better in every possible way (including historical accuracy) than the egregious BBC/A&E "Charles II" mini-series (USA title "The Last King"), set in the same time period, with many of the same characters, that was broadcast in 2004."The Lady and the Highwayman" is based on a Barbara Cartland romance novel, and set in Restoration England of the 1660s. Yet with a shift of locale, and a slight re-write, it could just as well be a western. Think "Zorro." Indeed it borrows lots of bits and pieces from classic westerns -- such as Hugh Grant's character jumping from atop a 30 foot wall on to the back of his horse."The Lady and the Highwayman" was filmed in England, using several real period castles and manor houses as locations. Both the detailed sets and the lavish costumes mesh seamlessly with the period buildings. The costume department did a great job, as much with the soldiers' uniforms, armor, and weapons, as with the courtiers' finery.The cast is excellent, and the dialog, by Terence Feely, was well written. 28-year old Hugh Grant looks young and suave, but doesn't say a whole lot. The star is young Lysette Anthony, then 25, and she is terrific. Oliver Reed is a menacingly villainous Phillip Gage. Michael York is a dashing King Charles II.I just saw the film on a $1 DigiView DVD sold by WalMart. It was definitely not a digital transfer -- but its graininess and off colors actually enhanced the impression of its being a 1930s film, rather than 1980s. It's no classic, but I enjoyed watching it, and I've seen plenty worse. 6/10.For another quirky and retro view of 17th century England, check out "Winstanley" by Kevin Brownlow.

This movie was one huge disappointment from beginning to end.Firstly, I bought the DVD. Big mistake. The transfer was by far the worst I've ever seen and I've watched hundreds of DVDs. It actually looked worse than what I can get when taping something off of regular network television using the EP setting on my VCR. Not only was the whole thing blurry beyond belief, several scenes shake like crazy and through the middle of many of the scenes there were video tracking lines like you'd see on a over used low grade VHS tape. Which is what this transfer was probably taken from. The low list price might have prepared me for the lack of quality of the menu, but for it to be of a better image quality than the movie itself was a bit of a surprise.Secondly, the movie itself was awful. I love a good period piece movie and I really wanted to like this one despite my misgivings as to where it got it's plot line (although I like an occasional historical romance book, I'm not a fan of Cartland). But there was just nothing to like here. The story was ridiculous, the dialog was atrocious and the acting was just plain bad. Something that I'm at a loss to explain with all the known talent that was in this movie. I'm sure I can't imagine what the director must have been doing to get such a lousy end product.At first I wanted to give this movie/DVD zero stars, but since I could only go as low as one star I did manage to find one good thing to justify that star. The costumes were wonderful.Fair warning: If you're thinking about seeing this movie solely because you're a fan of Hugh Grant, you can forget it. He barely strings 10 words together in two scenes and two words together in 10 other scenes. He's just not the major character in this movie that he's made out to be by the cover of the DVD.